Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As the Secretary of State indicated in his speech on nuclear deterrence before Easter, we have both a political and a moral responsibility to protect our people and allies. The nuclear deterrent is a sign to NATO, and as a leading member of NATO we cannot and should not outsource our commitments to others. There has been broad political consensus for decades in this House on the need to maintain the UK’s independent strategic deterrent. Government Members are clear where we stand. This remains the official policy of Her Majesty’s official Opposition, and it is in our view irresponsible that the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and her leader appear determined to put the ultimate security of our nation at risk.

Joan Ryan: I would indeed. Part of what we are doing today is asking the Government and the Chancellor to address these issues. There are strengthened penalties for employers who do not pay the national living wage, but I suggest that alongside those should go penalties for employers who deliberately circumvent the national living wage in this way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden was grateful for the fact that her speech during the Budget debate last month offered a great platform to get this issue the recognition it deserves. She was especially grateful for the interest shown by the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, which doubtless brought further attention to this issue, and I am pleased to see her here. My hon. Friend’s speech highlighted how illogical and unfair it was to claim that Britain was getting a pay rise while hard-working employees across the country were being hit by such pay cuts. She reminded the Government that the week before, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had been unwilling to promise that nobody who works on the shop floor would be taking home less money after 1 April. Last year, the Chancellor said he was committed to a higher-wage economy. He said:
“It cannot be right that we go on asking taxpayers to subsidise…the businesses who pay the lowest wages.”
He promised that the change would have only a “‘fractional’ effect on jobs”, and that the cost to business would be
“just 1% of corporate profits.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 337 to 338.]
That was a cost he offset with a cut to corporation tax.

Holly Lynch: I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this important debate. I wish her all the very best for a speedy recovery. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for opening the debate in her absence.
One of the biggest challenges facing this Government has been the persistence of low-paid work. I welcome any and all measures to address that. I will focus on asking the Government to reconsider the decision to deny the national living wage to under-25s.
It is an absolute travesty that young people have been told that they are not worth £7.20 an hour. I ask the Government to think carefully about the message that sends to young people and their families. People between the ages of 21 and 24 are currently paid 50p less than the new living wage per hour, 18 to 21-year-olds are paid £1.90 less an hour, and those under the age of 18 are paid just £3.87 an hour, which is £3.33 less. It is frustrating enough for those under 25 to be missing out on the financial boost, but the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General outlined his reasons for that decision as follows:
“Anybody who has employed people knows that younger people, especially in their first jobs, are not as productive, on average…It was an active choice not to cover the under 25s.”
What a blow to the next generation.
To give some perspective, Queen Victoria inherited the throne at the age of 18, Steve Jobs was 21 when he co-founded Apple, Mark Zuckerberg was 19 when he created Facebook, Adele was just 21 when she produced her Brit and Grammy award-winning album of the same name, and Roger Federer had won eight grand slam singles titles before he turned 25. Tales of William Pitt the Younger, Prime Minister at just 24, have no doubt made all of us in the Chamber feel like underachievers, but although that is far from being the norm, there is nothing new about young politicians and, dare I say it, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) is doing a pretty outstanding job as the baby of the House at the age of 21. I accept that those embarking on a new role often require training and support from employers, and so perhaps initially represent a reduced return on the employer’s investment of wages, but that could be the case for any new employee, regardless of age.
I will give an example of how unjust the policy could be in practice. Let us imagine a young person who takes their A-levels at 18, and goes into training in the workplace or directly into employment. They could have been in their job for seven years before being entitled to the living wage, yet a new employee could start in the same role, sat at the next desk, and be paid the living wage—50p more an hour—with seven years’ less experience, simply because they are over 25.
Alternatively, a young person might study hard at school and decide to pursue an academic route by going to university. Research by Which? indicates that a typical student on a three-year course outside London might expect to graduate with around £35,000 to £40,000 of student loan debt. Most students on a three-year course graduate at the age of 21. The Office for National Statistics has identified that around 47% of graduates  are employed in non-graduate roles, a trend that has steadily increased since the 2009 recession. A young graduate who has done all the right things—worked hard and got a degree—and who is saddled with up to £40,000 of debt as a result has only a 53% chance of securing a graduate job, and is not even entitled to the new living wage. That also means that they will not start paying their student loans back to the Government, which surely does not make sense for anyone.
When I graduated from Lancaster University at 21, I started working for an SME in my constituency, predominantly working in sales both overseas and across the UK. As one of the few employees who was young, was not married and did not have children, I was regularly asked to travel at short notice and do the out-of-hours engagements, working evenings and weekends. That reflects the experience of young people across the country. Young people are often asked to work harder and longer hours because of their youth—to work the longer shifts, lift the heavier packages and work the antisocial hours—and often oblige, through a desire to prove themselves and to move up the ladder, but also because sometimes their circumstances mean that it is easier for their employers to ask them, as a young person, rather than older members of staff who might have commitments at home.
Matt, who works in my parliamentary office, is 23. He graduated from Oxford University at 21. He works, in all honesty, like a Trojan, as do my other staff, who are over 25. It would be completely unfair and unjust to pay Matt less than my other members of staff simply because of his age.
There is also a danger that the omission of under-25s from the living wage makes those over 25 more vulnerable in the workplace, as it has the unintended consequence of making those under 25 more attractive to companies that have to deliver a service at the lowest possible cost. I hope that when summing up the Minister will outline what safeguards the Government intend to introduce for the living wage. In an economy where a few pounds is the difference between winning and losing a contract, how do we ensure that firms will not seek exploitatively to employ only under-25s, doing a disservice both to them and to those who are over 25 and will miss out as a result?
With that in mind, I ask the Government to reflect on their offer to young people. Citizens Advice recently published a report stating that young people from varied socioeconomic backgrounds are starting their adult lives with a significant and sometimes crippling amount of personal debt. Further figures from the Office for National Statistics confirm that as a result of lower pay, under-25s are being sucked into debt. According to the latest figures, 16 to 24-year-olds have the highest level of debt compared with income. It is double the debt level for the population as a whole. Would it not make sense to give that group a helping hand, and extend the national living wage to under-25s?
In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, the Prime Minister said:
“We want to see people taking home more money”.—[Official Report, 9 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 276.]
However, we are once again on the wrong side of the debate on equal pay for equal work. I ask the Government to rethink their decision to deny under-25s the national living wage.

Alison Thewliss: I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing this debate and the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for speaking very well in her place.
The Chancellor announced the national living wage with great triumphalism, but as with so many aspects of Government policy, it was quickly exposed as nothing more than smoke and mirrors. As we heard earlier, it is  not a living wage but a rebadging of the minimum wage. The real living wage is independently determined by the Living Wage Foundation and currently set at £8.25 an hour. If a person cannot live off it, it is not a living wage. The Government and the Minister should apologise to the Living Wage Foundation, to the many trade unions and employers that have legitimately taken up the real living wage and to the many campaigners who have fought for it over the years. It is a gross insult to those campaigners to appropriate their term, and it is bound to lead to misleading job adverts. It is not a real living wage if it is not an actual living wage for everybody.
It is also not a living wage if someone happens to be under 25. The Chancellor said:
“Britain deserves a pay rise and Britain is getting a pay rise.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 337.]
Interestingly, under-25s are clearly not “Britain”, because they are not entitled to the higher rate of the minimum wage. Their fair day’s work is not receiving a fair day’s pay. Since the minimum wage’s inception, it has contained an in-built aspect of age discrimination. It has been Scottish National party policy for some years to equalise the minimum wage—I was convener of the youth wing when my colleagues raised it in the party. I am proud to raise that point today, along with the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). I have heard it said that younger workers lack experience, but the minimum wage is not based on experience, it is based on age. A person can start on a minimum wage job at 16 and work in it for nine years before they are legally entitled to this new pretendy living wage, which a 25-year-old would get on their first day at work. They could walk in the door and get the higher living wage.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Halifax, this new minimum wage has also exacerbated the differential in the wages paid to younger workers in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, the most pronounced effect has been on apprentices. There are 54,000 apprentices in the UK who are not entitled to this living wage. They might have families and various other needs to meet, and they deserve fair pay as well. They cannot be expected to live off nothing. Discrimination of that sort is opposed in all other parts of society. This long-standing, state-endorsed age discrimination must end, and I call on the Government to take action. If they will not, I would like them to devolve employment law to the Scottish Government, who are making tremendous progress in promoting the uptake of the real living wage in Scotland.
The need to equalise the minimum wage has increased significance for younger workers on zero-hours contracts. I had a constituent in my surgery a few weeks ago who worked in a bar in Glasgow city centre. One day, she received a phone call from her employer saying that there was no need for her to come into work that evening because her services were no longer required. After getting over the shock of her sudden dismissal, she researched her options. Citizens Advice and ACAS both said she had no rights in her circumstances as a zero-hours worker. She suspects but cannot prove that she was let go because she was over 25 whereas her colleagues were under 25. I have heard the same thing anecdotally from friends who are over 25 and have seen their hours cut. They are now finding it difficult to make ends meet and to find another job in their sector.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise the concern of many of my constituents not only about the breathtaking decision of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police Service not to prosecute following the judgment of the election court in the case of fraud at the 2014 mayoral election in Tower Hamlets, but about the way that decision was communicated.
If I may, I will briefly lay out some of the background. There have been regular allegations about electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets at almost every election in recent years. Following the chaos at the 2014 mayoral election, especially at the count at the Troxy centre, many complaints were again registered. This time, however, there was a major difference. In the absence of prosecutorial action and to the embarrassment of local political parties, four brave citizens—Andy Erlam, Debbie Simone, Azmal Hussein and Angela Moffat—decided, at considerable personal risk, to raise a private prosecution in the election court. As you know, Mr Speaker, that court has all the powers of the High Court or the Court of Session.
As long ago as 1947, a report produced by a committee considering electoral law reform commented:
“Irregularities in elections should not be regarded as a private wrong which an individual must come forward to remedy, but as attempts to wreck the machinery of representative government, and, as an attack upon national institutions which the nation should concern itself to repel”.
The committee also noted that
“the integrity of elections…concerns the community as a whole”.
Those words should give us some idea of the enormity and significance of what the four Tower Hamlets petitioners did not only for Tower Hamlets, but for the whole of the national electorate. Indeed, the judge stated:
“To bring an election petition as a private citizen requires enormous courage”,
as, for the petitioners, it involves
“a potentially devastating bill of costs”.
He also observed the misery that the petitioners faced, who
“would be portrayed as racists and Islamophobes, attempting to set aside the election...And so it proved. The Petitioners have been duly vilified—but they have hung in there.”
No one suffered in this respect more than petitioner Azmal Hussein, whose efforts to highlight and bring to an end corruption in the borough of Tower Hamlets brought all manner of vile abuse literally to his door. The verbal abuse and threats lasted right through to the case in the High Court. Azmal Hussein was told he should die for challenging the election result, and was despised as someone who failed to join others in the view that ethnic and religious solidarity should outweigh any respect for democracy and fair play. Mr Hussein’s van and restaurant window were vandalised, but he stayed resolute and strong.
The judge quite rightly said in his judgment:
“The court expresses surprise that this Petition was not brought by the Labour Party.”
His words resonate, embarrassingly, with many of us. It should not have been left to four tenacious and brave individuals to insist that democracy, not Kray twins-style gangsterism, should be the system that governs in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
I want to say a word in praise of Mr Hoar, who provided the legal representation for the four plaintiffs. I echo the sentiments of the judge, who said in his judgment:
“For Mr Hoar, this has been a complete tour de force. He accepted the case on the basis of direct access”,
as his four clients could not afford to instruct solicitors. Of his efforts, the judge said:
“By any standards this was a considerable feat and worthy of the admiration of the court.”
After a trial lasting 30 days, with Mr Richard Mawrey QC sitting as a judge, on 23 April 2015 Lutfur Rahman was reported personally guilty and guilty by his agents of corrupt and illegal practices, of making false statements of fact about another candidate’s personal conduct or character, of administering council grants in a way which constituted electoral bribery and of spiritual intimidation of voters. He was also reported guilty by his agents of personation, postal vote fraud, fraudulent registration of voters and illegal payment of canvassers. That is quite a list.
The judge also stated that
“the financial affairs of THF”—
Tower Hamlets First—
“were, at best, wholly irresponsible and at worst, dishonest.”
The judge’s observations indicated that he recognised that character assassination had happened not only during the election campaign, but in the court. In referring to evidence given by THF members about a woman who gave evidence against them, he said that
“the three men were quite deliberately lying.”
In the end, the election of May 2014 was declared void, with Mr Rahman disqualified from holding electoral office for five years. The court judgment says:
“These penalties are entirely separate from any criminal sanctions that might be imposed if the candidate concerned is prosecuted to conviction for an electoral offence.”
In an article in The Guardian, Dave Hill said of Judge Mawrey:
“He did not give Rahman a back alley kicking of the type that recur in the more gruesome East End mythologies, but he did dish out a legal equivalent.”
As I understand it, the level of proof required by the election court is equivalent to that in criminal law, rather than civil law. The judgment states:
“It is settled law that the court must apply the criminal standard of proof, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
It later says:
“Thus the court will apply a) the criminal standard of proof to the charges that Mr Rahman and/or his agents have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices; b) the criminal standard of proof to the question of whether there has been general corruption”.
The plaintiffs have been seeking costs. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has recently confirmed that Mr Rahman is to appear before its disciplinary tribunal. At the very least, there are suggestions that he has been hiding his assets, offloading to his family or not declaring properties owned here and in Bangladesh. As was reported recently in the East London Advertiser,
“The £500,000 legal costs of the original six-week election trial was awarded against Rahman,”
although, as the article went on to say, £3 million of property assets have been frozen. The four petitioners are still trying to recoup heavy financial losses from Mr Rahman.
There is talk of a property in Bow that is owned by Mr Rahman, although it takes some effort to get beyond the layers of complication in respect of his properties, with his wife claiming part-ownership and beneficial interest. There is also undeclared income to the taxman on two properties that they rented out. It seems that money and property are sloshing around, adding additional features to the catalogue of wrongdoing. Mr Rahman, meanwhile, has declared himself bankrupt.
On the question of property, the judge referred to a particular address, 16 Prioress House, and its place within this narrative of dodgy dealings. Two THF candidates had asserted that they lived at that address. The judgment declared:
“I am completely satisfied that neither of these two THF candidates ever resided at 16 Prioress House.”
It states that they were therefore
“guilty of an offence under s 61”.
The judge drew a number of conclusions on the issue of grants, including, for the record, that
“enormous sums of public money had been paid to organisations in excess of that which Council officers had recommended and, in many instances, to organisations that had not even applied for grants”.
The judgment states that
“a total of 15 applications receiving aggregate funding of £243,500 did not meet minimum eligibility criteria and so were not scored by officers”,
and continues:
“Further, 21 applications totalling £455,700, which did meet the minimum eligibility criteria, but did not meet the minimum quality threshold score of 40, were successful in the final awards.”
The judgment went on to say:
“By way of another example, grants totalling just under £100,000 were handed out to ten organisations, all Bangladeshi or other Muslim organisations, for lunch clubs when none of them had even applied for a grant.”
It states that
“organisations deemed totally ineligible…found themselves the grateful recipients of tens of thousands pounds of public money”,
and that
“£352,000 was awarded without an open application process”
from a fund called the “954 Fund”. It continues:
“Shadwell’s grant increased from £204,386 to £460,750”,
meaning that it more than doubled. Subsequently,
“Shadwell returned two THF candidates…Bow East, on the other hand, saw its grant reduced from the officers’ recommendation of £99,397—cut by roughly a third to £67,000.”
The opposite effect to what we saw in Shadwell is all too clear:
“Bow East returned three Labour Councillors.”
We can do nothing but conclude that Tower Hamlets First candidates benefited from money that their party invested locally.
The judge’s conclusion? I quote:
“Was the making of those grants corrupt? Again, this seems inescapable.”
He observed that it was bribery
“by any ethical or moral standards”,
but posed the question,
“is it bribery contrary to s 113 of the 1983 Act?”
In its formal conclusions the judgment says:
“The court is satisfied and certifies that in the election for the Mayor of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets held on 22 May 2014...the First Respondent Mr Rahman was personally guilty and guilty by his agents of an illegal practice contrary to s 106 of the 1983 Act…the First Respondent Mr Rahman was personally guilty and guilty by his agents of a corrupt practice contrary to s 113 of the 1983 Act…the First Respondent Mr Rahman was personally guilty and guilty by his agents of a corrupt practice contrary to s 115 of the 1983 Act.”
Scotland Yard dropped its investigation into electoral fraud after finding
“insufficient evidence that criminal offences had been committed”.
How does that tally with the election court’s findings? Detectives launched their investigation after Mr Rahman was found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices. How can practices with such a description not be worthy of prosecution? I have written to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about these matters, and have secured a meeting soon with Commissioner Hogan-Howe, when I hope to raise these and other questions.
The police findings have led Mr Rahman’s supporters to claim that he has been proven innocent of all charges. Who can blame them? As pointed out by local Conservative Councillor Peter Golds,
“if the police fail to prosecute, there are no convictions and therefore no fraud…Even a successful election petition can be swept under the carpet when the police do nothing.”
It should be noted that the judge paid tribute to Councillor Golds, by whom the petitioners “have been greatly aided”.
The Bangladeshi media in Tower Hamlets have reported events as anticipated. Mr Ted Jeory, a reporter of high reputation who has long taken an interest in these matters, says:
“The Bengali media failed miserably in their journalistic duty to hold the borough’s leaders to account. Instead of ‘without fear or favour’, there was far too much fear and they were full of favour. Lutfur…demanded almost nationalistic loyalty to his cause, and it was given. They did their readers and viewers a huge disservice.”
Mr Speaker, I hope you can imagine the consternation all this has caused in Tower Hamlets to all of our residents interested in democracy, regardless of their colour, religion or background.
On the various views of the court and its findings, I feel it is worth pointing out that, contrary to what Mr Rahman’s supporters have espoused, the judge was not interested in indulging in a wholehearted, blinkered condemnation of the former mayor. However, the judge highlighted the extent to which the former mayor’s supporters nursed and perpetrated the belief that they and their candidate were victims:
“In their minds, they were being targeted because they were Bangladeshi and Muslim: so their critics were necessarily racists and Islamophobes.”
Such swiftly despatched gibes not only slander, besmirch and cause distress—as they are designed to do—to those innocent of such charges, but they devalue the terms and diminish the plight of those who experience and suffer real prejudice.
The election court says Lutfur Rahman is guilty, but the CPS and the MPS say there is not enough evidence. However, there are suggestions that other inquiries into aspects of fraud and corruption are ongoing. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline exactly what is going on. Which inquiries are still ongoing? Where do the plaintiffs stand in respect of recovering their costs? Where do voters stand in terms of having confidence in electoral arrangements in the future? The Government have appointed commissioners to rebuild the public’s confidence that the system can protect against bribery and corruption, and is robust enough to prevent those who have contempt for our democracy from continuing to undermine it in the future. Can the Minister reassure us that the new Mayor, John Biggs, and the commissioners are on track to deliver?
With the greatest respect to the Minister, I had expected the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice to respond to this debate, or perhaps a Justice Minister. I received a nice letter from the Policing Minister who said that a Minister from the Department for Communities and Local Government would respond, but it is actually a Cabinet Office Minister. As he knows, I hold him in high regard, and I mean no disrespect. It does not matter to me—I want a Government response, and I am sure that he will be able to provide one. These are serious matters, so I hope that he will reassure the good people of Tower Hamlets that the authorities will defend their rights, ensure that their elections are not stolen again in future, and say that the petitioners will receive the costs to which they are entitled.